It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheism is a Cop-out

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Saul of Tarsus
 

That's what you believe. You have the right to your beliefs and I have the right to mine. I find it childish that you need to attack another persons beliefs to make yourself feel better about your own.




posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

We SHOULD BE DISCUSSING THE BELIEFS!


Religion is just a philosophy for living life. Everyone has to have a philosophy to believe in bigger than themselves or else they just end up becoming clumps of dirt that react to what is around them. I agree, discussing the beliefs is a good idea. And so is believing in something.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by darkbake]


I really think this idea of 'beliefs' needs to be analyzed a lot more closely.

Because the god squad like to paint atheists and agnostics as amoral, and not 'believing' in something, which they equate to moral depravity.

They elevate their 'belief' as a way of obtaining moral high ground.

Quoting the bible; "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." James 2:19

In other words, "So what? Even the devils do as much."

Therefore I think, by the admission of their own book - 'belief' and morality are totally unrelated - unless you want to ascribe righteousness to devils? ... didn't think so.

Holding fast to a conviction, and idea or principal is also sometimes wrongfully attributed as a belief - this is a conviction, and not believing in god does not prevent people from following convictions, having impeccable characters, being moral, just and righteous.

Justice, righteousness, mercy, truth and conviction are not trademarked by any book or religion - they exist as virtues in all men in varying measure.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
This is what i don't understand.

Christianity is just ONE god away from atheism, yet because we believe in ZERO gods and Christians believe in ONE god then we atheists are somehow nasty, horrible, ignorant people.

Yet you Christians will happily scoff at the idea of Thor, Vishnu, Set, Odin, Shiva etc. You christians will hapilly insult Hinduism for believing in many Gods, or you'll insult Islam for believing in in a different god.

The hypocrisy would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Atheist is such an icky word


true story.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Any of the "Christians" who keep insisting it takes faith and belief to be Atheist and that it is opposition to your god and all that good stuff care to answer something for me?

If a person were to grow up in such a manner so to only learn secular things, never once being told of any gods, religions, or anything else beyond the realm of standard known things then

Being an atheist by definition,
What faith are they holding onto ?
What belief defines their Atheism in this context?
What god or gods are they opposing?

If Atheism is all of these things, then there must be no way an Atheist could exist without clear cut answers to these questions. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
An Atheist has a much easier time to learn the truth as they have not been brain washed into believing false religious doctrines.

If a so called believer has put his faith into the teachings of man then he some times comes to believe in the Return of Jesus SAGA. JESUS SAID HIS SHEEP HEAR HIS VOICE. Not many have listened to or followed what he taught in scriptures. So these so called Christians have been blinded from the truth.

Take a good look at what or who you put your faith in before you judge a nonbeliever because many here in this thread those so called believers can go to the lake of fire. There is only one real truth always has been and always will be. FIND IT before you pass on, because then it will be to late.

JESUS GAVE SALVATION
JESUS CAME NOT TO DESTROY THIS WORLD BUT TO SAVE THOSE THAT ARE LOST But many so called believers have him destroying this world.

A new heaven and earth was made n a spiritual sense.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Theists believe in the natural and the supernatural.

Atheists only believe in the natural.

Believing in the supernatural is a prerequisite for Theism.

Am I wrong?



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by Amagnon
 

No offense but that is a lot of reading just to justify agnosticism as being brave. I have started reading it twice but it seems to wind a bit. If you think being agnostic is more brave, then go for it.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]


You accuse me of having a cowards outlook, then you say 'no offense'?

In what way is that not offensive?

Then you twist the discussion, where I am claiming agnosticism is brave?
That is you repeating your own nonsense.

You claimed it was cowardly - which is like name calling, something people resort to when they don't have a valid argument.

I just pointed out that belief replaces the unknowns. So instead of facing the unknown, which is uncomfortable and scary, believers of all types, simply invent an answer they cannot possibly know - so they don't have to face it.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by Amagnon]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


What exactly did you take offense to? I really did not think after reading through your entire post, you would be nearly as quick to anger as my good Christian friends. I have no idea what name calling you are referring to but since you thought I was being rude. Let me get 8 or 9 cups of coffee and then go back and respond to your entire post for you. I hope you get what you wanted from that.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Religion is the paradox of believing that bunch of child molesters know more about the unknown than you do.
Heck, the founder of one religion was a pedophile! (hint: his religion is the quickest to take offense, gladly beheads people and is actively taking over the world).

I am not against all religion, if I have to pick a religion to follow would be the Jain branch of Hinduism.
You know those folks who cover their mouth with a cloth so they don't accidentally swallow insects and thus harm a living being?
Sure, they may not the people who will cure malaria but they won't fly airplanes into buildings and then build a temple at the site either.

Buddhism is not a religion, although there are plenty of gods in the Buddhist world view and worshiping gods is regarded as a hindrance to understanding at best and depending on what god you follow it actually could be very bad for you and others at worst.
I don't deny the existence of gods despite never having seen one but on the other hand I have never actually seen radio waves fly through the air as I talk on my cellphone.

Gods are like people- some are good, some bad and some are super a$$holes.
You know, just like people.

Would you trust your car to this guy, much less your(after)life:



edit to resize picture




[edit on 11-7-2010 by tungus]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
Well, because I have already seized the logical high ground with my previous arguments, I will continue in that vein.


Really? See, I have a hard time accepting anything that begins with such arrogance and a tint of derision is going to teach me anything about spirituality.


Allow me therefore, having proved my intrinsic 'rightness' (yes, I AM being ironic), to offer a rebuttal to your assertion of cowardice in the first instance - and confusion and lack of 'belief' - (which I will broadly interpret as being lack of conviction) in the second.


Dazzle me but since you have already seized the logical high ground, why bother?


However, before launching into said rebuttal, I will first offer you some insights on your observations regarding the color of the sky.


So, a long empty, arrogant opening that only leads into a segue?

Sigh...


The sky is any color you want it to be - it is any color that you say it is, because you exist in a private reality.


So I should just follow you from here? This has been proven? Your statement is logical because...? Oh, right I should just shut up and take what you say for granted, right? That is how I can achieve my own logical high ground.


You interact with a collective reality - but at the end of the day, the reality you experience is unique to you. For a nice clear example, I suggest watching the movie "A beautiful mind'.


Already slept right through it twice and I am pretty sure the sky is still blue.


When we interact with others, we do so through the medium of communication, which references 'agreed upon reality' - or collective reality. The fact that we use it to communicate, does not in any way confer any particular attributes of correctness to it.


Where can I buy your text book? I mean, this would not come without backup and experiments and solid results, right? Or...are you just saying fun hippy nonsense?


Lets reference that wonderful cliche that is always introduced when discussing such topics, namely is the world is flat or spherical? Well, as has been noted it seems that a lot of people thought it might be flat - and such was agreed reality. It didn't make it right, but to make claims to the contrary was to exit agreed reality - and to visit the realms of the fairies.


Agreed upon reality is the same as superstition. There was a time when agreed upon reality was that illness was caused by demons. Did that make exorcisms cure anything? Uh....no. Did belief in a flat world ever lead anyone to find an edge? So reality was always reality and ignorance is your excuse for not agreeing with reality? Good argument.


So while you look at the sky, and say - "It's blue." I look at whatever it is, and say "That's amazing." If someone asks me what color the sky is, I respond by referencing agreed reality and respond "Blue." Inside my head, I know I am being arrogant assuming I even know what 'blue' is, let alone 'sky'.


I will be arrogant and say that I do indeed know what blue is. It has a measurable wavelength. Blue can actually be scientifically measured. You on the other hand go through pointless mental gymnastics before replying "blue" anyway? Mmmmmk.


Therefore, with respect to your charge of cowardice, I offer a counter charge - namely arrogance.


There is nothing arrogant about observing proven scientific results. I would argue there is arrogance in asserting to know so much of "reality" without the benefit of anything outside your opinion.


Additionally, it is easy to see that it requires more courage to live in an alien and unfamiliar place than to inhabit a familiar one. This is one of the driving reasons for people to have beliefs - it makes them feel safe, and yields a sense of power over the environment.


Science is alien. It constantly evolves and becomes new again. New discoveries, new technology, it is all pretty daunting. "Do not eat shellfish" has been pretty constant for a few millennium now. Just simply saying "I dunno"(agnosticism) takes courage how? Oh, right, you are getting to that eventually.


Regarding the charge of lack of belief, guilty as charged - but only with respect to physical reality. In terms of conceptual beliefs, I have plenty of them, and many things I am passionate about - arising from my overly developed sense of justice.


You have a wild imagination but do not believe in blue. Sorry I did not take you seriously before.


In your example of the sky being blue - I don't know, nor does anyone else know, what is 'sky' and what is 'blue' - we know only in the context of being human beings, and that by definition introduces the aspect of limited observational capacity, knowledge and plain fallibility.


What "sky" and "blue" are only matter and exist in terms of human context. You are trying to take arbitrary words we use to communicate a common understanding and make it into some esoteric alternate reality nonsense. We have the word sky because people needed a way to communicate about that stuff up there in a more specific manner. The words come from agreement so yes, we know what they are. If you do not, you should not be allowed outside sans helmet.


The less you believe, the less filters you apply to incoming data - the less bias you introduce to observations. The better equipped you are to understand.


Cool. Try not believing in gravity, stoplights (what is 'red' anyway?) bullets, food, air, other people, walls, doors, windows, and the color of the sky at the current moment. Report back in a week. Maybe you can convince me nothing is real too.


Socrates, not famous for being a village idiot, once famously reflected (paraphrasing); If I know one thing, it is that I know nothing and I barely know that.


Yeah, it always takes a genius to google a quote from someone who is actually smart. Relating that idea is another issue altogether.

Sorry I did not really consider this idea of nothing being real and you not understanding why things have names was not worth responding to because I could not take it seriously. I hope this helps.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 





Religion is the paradox of believing that bunch of child molesters know more about the unknown than you do.


I am not religious, but your statement is not valid and is very shallow. We cant generalize groups like that....



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by tungus
 





Religion is the paradox of believing that bunch of child molesters know more about the unknown than you do.


I am not religious, but your statement is not valid and is very shallow. We cant generalize groups like that....


You have read the headlines about the Catholic church lately, no?
Ok, maybe they are not all child molesters but we only learn about the ones who are long after the damage is done. I'd keep my kids as far away from priests if I were you ...just as a precaution.

Still, my statement about believing that another human being who is just like you knows more about the unknown than yourself is a paradox and that statement is valid.
It is the paradox of willingly giving power to another to mess with your mind, and once they gain access to your mind all kind of horrible things are possible- child abuse being one of them.
So my generalization is also valid and not shallow at all.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by tungus]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 





Still, my statement about believing that a human like you knows more about the unknown is a paradox and that statement is valid.


This was not what you said in your first post, you labeled a group and then related that label to the whole group.

On your above posts....I wholeheartedly agree.

Every individual should not count on another man to show them things of Spirit.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Atheism is the rationalization of making oneself ones own deity and as such, there really is no atheism. EVERYONE everywhere believes in some form of controlling moral authority, even if it's oneself.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mordant1
Atheism is the rationalization of making oneself ones own deity and as such, there really is no atheism. EVERYONE everywhere believes in some form of controlling moral authority, even if it's oneself.


Atheism has nothing to do with becoming one's own deity.

You are thinking of Satanism and even their it is meant FIGURATIVELY.

Does anyone that is not an atheist know how to read a dictionary?



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You're focusing on words and not function or results that the words when connected together represent, resulting in sloppy thinking.
Smply because one claims to chose or not choose to give a name to ones deity or alleged lack thereof is just intellectual obfusctation. Words have to be coupled to results. Defining words and concepts as disconnected constructs is pointless and cannot result in productive results.

Tell me, by what methodology do you keep from simply killing anyone that has something you want? Is it god? If there is no god, and you can get away with it, why not take what you want? Animals are the only atheists, they do what serve their needs without reservation.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by mordant1]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mordant1
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You're focusing on words and not function or results that the words when connected together represent, resulting in sloppy thinking.


Noooooo....

I am USING words as they are defined in order to communicate with people that seem to have no clue what the definitions are.


Smply because one claims to chose or not choose to give a name to ones deity or alleged lack thereof is just intellectual obfusctation.


Not atheism you are talking about. That is called confusion.


Words have to be coupled to results. Defining words and concepts as disconnected constructs is pointless and cannot result in productive results.


You seem to be doing your very best to do just the opposite. I believe many good questions lay ignored that illustrate this point.

You are born an atheist. At birth, which god are you choosing to or not to reject? At birth, which god are you or are you not putting a name to?

Might I guess you are a Christian?


Tell me, by what methodology do you keep from simply killing anyone that has something you want?


I have ethics. I understand that what I have means something to me. I understand that I enjoy being alive and having the people I enjoy being alive. From that I can surmise that anyone taking from me or killing to take from me would make me very unhappy. Thus, were I to do the same I would be making them very unhappy. That seems counterproductive, especially since I enjoy what being part of society brings to me.


Is it god?


Is that the only thing keeping you from killing and stealing?


If there is no god, and you can get away with it, why not take what you want?


That is the most failed premise I have ever heard. Prison sucks. I am not sure why you forgot there are police and crimes are solved but "getting away with it" is actually quite hard to do.

Other than that, I explained above. I am smart enough to know what I would feel on the receiving end and it makes no sense for me to do the same to someone else.

Do you really only not murder because you might go to hell for it? How sick is that?


Animals are the only atheists, they do what serve their needs without reservation.


Humans are not animals. You are making a false equation.

Humans are mammals and whales are mammals but only one can hold a joystick no matter what kind of silly rationale you come up with.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mordant1
Tell me, by what methodology do you keep from simply killing anyone that has something you want? Is it god? If there is no god, and you can get away with it, why not take what you want? Animals are the only atheists, they do what serve their needs without reservation.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by mordant1]


You can be moral without being religious. I wouldn't kill someone simply because my own moral compass doesn't allow for it.

Another point is that I want to treat people the way I want to be treated.

These moral ideas have nothing to do with religion in my life.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 





Then you twist the discussion, where I am claiming agnosticism is brave?


Don't feel all alone. Alot of people are catching on to this guys twisted
double speak.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join